John Lacny wrote:
> I don't have much time, but I should clarify a few things.
I also am short of time, and apologize for the delay in my
reply, which is partly due to problems with my internet service
provider.
>
> First off, I am not hewing to the trot line of "military but not
> political support," or some such thing. You're right that I should
> clarify this, because there IS a great deal of slander directed against
> the Kosovars on the far left these days.
I tried to clarify, apparently insufficiently, that I
didn't identify your position with that of WWP etc. I appreciate the
fact that your stands on the governments in China, Serbia, etc. are
different. However, your plan for agitation seems to involve a
coalition with these forces in which these differences are set aside
as not relevant for the time because nothing can supposedly be done
for Kosovo anyway. Or do you envision some way of raising this
difference in the middle of this agitation? And how can this be
done if one is afraid to deal with the issue of the right to
self-determination?
> (By the same token, there is a
> lot of nonsense on the liberal left, which several years ago was holding
> up the government of the Islamic fundamentalist, Alija Izetbegovic, as
> some kind of last holdout of multicultural democracy and pluralistic
> tolerance.)
My standpoint is to support the development of proletarian
trends, not to glorify the existing political trends. This is
true with respect to Bosnia as well as Kosovo. That still leaves the
question of assesing the central Bosnian government. My impression
was that the war and then the Dayton Accords resulted in a dramtic
deterioration in its policies.
> I was involved in an exchange on the Marxism List some months
> ago in which I criticized Diana Johnstone's CAQ piece as soft on Serbian
> chauvinism.
That's interesting. For the category of one of the most
odd things written about Yugoslavia and Kosovo, I too would
nominate "Seeing Yugoslavia Through a Dark Glass", posted a few days
ago on the list. (This is the same article by D. Johnstone that you
are talking about, no?) . I was astonished at an article that went so
far as to propose that monarchy in Serbia bore a different character
from monarchy elsewhere, Serbian monarachy being
supposedly progressive. Meanwhile, in the name of not demonizing
whole nationalities, it proceeded to demonize the Albanian Kosovars
and Bosnian Muslims. It looked at matters from the point of view of
which nationality is supposedly best, rather than of the different
class stands that exist inside every nationality. Meanwhile it
ignores the actual developments in Yugoslavia.It seems that some
forces on the left have an infinite capacity to overlook the internal
problems in regimes they like and to blame everything on foreign
forces.
I considered posting something on this piece on PEN-L, but it
really would take time to write I don't really have. Is your critique
something you could post here? I at least would like to see it. If
you don't post it, may I request that you at least send it to me?
> This is a problem on the radical left, and my hunch is that
> you place special emphasis on things like Kosovo because you are trying to
> go after some of the prejudices of the left when it comes to regimes like
> this. Both you and your comrade Ben Seattle have produced some
> interesting stuff in this vein.
>
> All of this said, I must insist that my comparison of Kosovo with
> "plucky little Belgium" does not constitute "slander." To say that the
> Kosovar struggle is being manipulated by the Western powers for propaganda
> purposes does not constitute a denial of the oppression that the Kosovars
> are experiencing. However, it does question the usefulness of stridently
> calling for "self-determination for Kosovo!" at a time when the Big Powers
> are preparing for war against Serbia.
One problem is that you tend to equate anyone's call for the
right to self-determination as playing into Western propaganda. If we
follow that logic, then it has to be followed consistently. And that
means that one would have to regard that talking about
the threat of the Serbian military being bombed would
amount to playing into Milosevic's hands.
Moreover, as is clear in the current negotiations, the West
does not support the right to self-determination. They are not giving
that slogan. They are insisting on autonomy. Their rationale is that
they are stopping the spread of the bloodshed, holding back the
current warfare, and seeking an end to any future bloodshed. This is
the main gist of their propaganda.
Since the Western powers don't want to annex Kosovo (and their
troops wouldn't be there for that purpose), and since they have in
fact held down the level of bloodshed a bit, it requires some thought
as to how to expose what they are doing. One of the key things is
that they are inflaming the situation by imposing deals that don't
solve the underlying problem, such as the right to
self-determination. (The Dayton Accords, for example,
stopped the warfare, but left a situation which is highly unstable
and which has been conducive to the wide spreasd of chauvinism
throughout Bosnia.)
>
> You say that my strategy means abandoning Albanian villages to
> destruction. I have to admit the grim reality that it does, just as
> opposing Allied intervention in World War I would have meant abandoning
> Serbia and Belgium to the tender mercies of the Central Powers. It's
> cruel, but it involves a calculation that a full-scale war would be even
> worse.
The main way socialist solidarity was manifested in World War
One was solidarity between revolutionary socialists of each
country, and not in stopping this or that military operation. How
indeed would it have possible to stop such operations? Naturally each
war has its own particularlity. In World War I, even before the war
the Basle Resolution pointed out that the threatened war would result
in revolutionary situations throughout Europe. Thus the main task of
revolutionary socialists was directed to actually bringing about
revolution in their own country.
There are a number of differences between WW I and the present
situation in Kosovo. For one thing, WW I didn't center on Belgium or
Serbia. But the present situation in Kosovo really does center on
Kosovo..
>
> Of course I am in favor of working-class unity and the
> encouragement of proletarian trends in the former Yugoslavia. It's just
> that you haven't answered my question as to what exactly this would entail
> for leftists living in the United States. Forgive any possible melodrama
> on my part, but what is to be done?
It involves agitation, direct links, taking up common tasks
(including theoretical ones), etc., according to the strength and
possibilities of the forces involved. Let me point out a concrete
matter regarding leftists in the United States. Any demonstration in
the region I live in, would be seen by many Albanian Kosovars, Serbs,
Croats, etc. They live here, and they have live contacts with their
former homelands, indeed, they go back and forth between these
regions and here. If the line given amounted to abandoning the
Albanian Kosovars and ignoring the bloodshed in their area, and
also neglects to support the Serbs who are fighting against the
current Serbian policy, while only agitating on the suffering that
afflicts the Serbian military and Inner Serbia as part of its
war on Kosovo, it would have a very clear meaning to these
communities. It would not be taken as a mere tactical stand
reflecting all that can be done at the moment. It is perfectly clear
to these communities that the analysis concerning these problems
affects whether and how they will support their compatriots back home
and what trends they will support back home (and they will find
concerete ways to do so). If the left abandons one people after
another, how long before there is no one left to support the left?
Comradely regards,
Joseph Green
